Partly allowed

Madhusuthanan, v. Kavitha Priyadharshini

Madras HC17 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/11248/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed domestic violence proceedings against three petitioners (father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law) as an abuse of process due to lack of domestic relationship, while dismissing the petition regarding the husband-petitioner and directing disposal of that charge within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners 2, 3 and 4; proceedings against petitioner 1 to be disposed of within three months.

Madhusuthanan, Vs Kavitha Priyadharshini — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL.O.P(MD)No.11248 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.10.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CRL.O.P(MD)No.11248 of 2017 and CRL.M.P(MD)Nos.7731 & 7732 of 2017

¶7

Madhusuthanan

¶8

Naganathan

¶9

Inbavalli

¶10

Ilavarasi ...Petitioners / 1^st to 4^th Respondents

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Kavithapriyadharshini ...Respondent / Petitioner

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in D.V.C.No.04 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur and quash the same in respect of the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.N.Balakrishnan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.04 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶17

The first Petitioner is the husband, second Petitioner is the father-in-law, third petitioner is the mother-in-law and fourth petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent.

¶18

It is seen from the records that the petitioners 2 to 4 were living separately and the respondent is living separately and therefore, no domestic violence can be attributed as against the petitioners 2 to 4. The respondent has not made any specific allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4 except for certain general allegations and certain specific averments have been made by the respondent only against the 1^st petitioner. Even in the absence of a domestic relationship with the respondent, the petitioners 2 to 4 have been roped in a domestic violence petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

CRL.O.P(MD)No.11248 of 2017

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶22

In the considered view of this Court, the 1^st petitioner has to necessarily face the proceedings before the Court below. Inso-far-as the petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, the entire proceedings is an abuse of process of Court and the same requires interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

In the result, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.4 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur is quashed insofar as the 2^nd to 4^th petitioners are concerned. Insofar as the first Petitioner/husband is concerned, this Petition stands dismissed. It is left open to the respondent to proceed further to prosecute the domestic violence petition as against the husband / 1^st petitioner.

¶24

This Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and there shall be a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, to dispose of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.4 of 2017, as against the husband/1^st petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶27

tsg

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur.

¶30

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.J.ANANDKUMAR, Advocate SR-93199.

¶32

CRL.O.P(MD)No.11248 of 2017 17.10.2019

¶33

CS(31.10.2019) 2P 4C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

2/2

Madhusuthanan, v. Kavitha Priyadharshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusuthanan, v. Kavitha Priyadharshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.Arumugam Vs Ramaiah Nadar

Yasothai Vs Senthamarai

M.Vadivel Vs R.Nallasamy

Amutha Vs M.Dharani

Jebakkani Pappa Vs K. Hemalatha

K.S.K.Mohammed Masuthu, Vs R.Meeral @ Jasmine